Posts tagged “dick warlock”

There has been one conspicuous omission from my reviews of the Halloween franchise, and it is this first sequel. The reason for this is, one, I have never really written a full review of it before, and secondly, I’ve never really cared for it at all. This stems from the fact that it has very little to offer me as either a fan of John Carpenter’s original or as a big slasher movie fan. Simply said, so much of it just doesn’t appeal to me. From the reworked score to the bland hospital environment to the clear shift from atmospheric horror to a reliance on gore, this isn’t the Halloween sequel that I want to see. Even the ones that are technically worse films, they have an entertainment value that I can indulge in on some level. There are many reasons why this film doesn’t even give me that much.

Picking up exactly where the first film left off, it seems the inhuman Michael Myers is still very much alive and out for more revenge as he stalks the deserted halls of the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital for Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). As he gets closer to his main target, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) discovers the chilling mystery behind the crazed psychopath’s actions

It might sound somewhat unfair, but the vast majority of my gripes with this film are in comparison to John Carpenter’s original. However, with the fact that this film picks up exactly where the first left off, it demands that comparison because it is trying to convince us that this is a seamless continuation of that movie. The problem is that it doesn’t feel seamless in many aspects, and they are largely on the technical side. Still, there are issues with the quality of the script, and just the effectiveness of Halloween II as a horror movie that I wish to address.

To be straight up honest, I do not like the score for this movie at all. Yes, they are the same themes with John Carpenter and Alan Howarth doing the score, but the overly saturated synthesizer sound has never been to my liking. It doesn’t sound like a horror movie score to me. It sounds silly and over bloated. The first film’s score felt far more subtle and artistically applied. To me, the score for Halloween II just evokes no sense of tension, suspense, or chilling atmosphere for me. There are many instances where a strategic use of score could have been utilized to craft great suspense and nerve-racking tension, but instead, it’s dead silent. This score relies more heavily on the musical stingers, and feels poorly implemented overall. Carpenter’s scores usually craft a brilliant soundscape for a unique auditory experience, but there seems to be a significant lack of score in the moments where it should flourish.

Now, this is a very well shot movie, done so again by acclaimed director of photography Dean Cundey. It has some very good lighting schemes in certain scenes, and the continued use of the Pana-glide camera work is excellent. Director Rick Rosenthal does make an effort to emulate John Carpenter’s visual style, but I have always felt that the color palette of Halloween II was never quite right when compared to the first film. The hospital interiors feature a terribly bland color scheme, as most hospitals do, and because of this, it doesn’t have any of the visual pop of the first movie. There are no daytime scenes to soak in that late autumn feeling as this is all set at night, and really, it feels like it could be any night of the year. The film also lacks the atmospheric blue tones that Cundey used in the original as well as several other films he’s shot. Also, when I look at this film in certain instances, the lighting just doesn’t look quite right. The feeling, the mood, the balance of light and dark, at times, doesn’t feel consistent with the first film. This is especially evident when new footage is spliced into the revisited footage from the ending of Halloween. It’s not even knowing that it is new footage married with old footage. Back to the Future, Part II did this sort of thing seamlessly, and was also shot by Dean Cundey. These issues, I think, also stem from the fact that the first movie was a late 1970’s independently produced film while this is an early 1980’s studio produced sequel. It is inevitably going to have a slightly different visual feel due to extra money, studio mandates, a shift in filmmaking aesthetics, and a change of directors.

Even then, Rick Rosenthal’s film was tampered with by the studio and Carpenter as they felt it was too tame in comparison to other recent slasher films. While I can see the clear evidence of that since there is a definite lack of suspense, although much of that is, again, due to the absence of a score in key scenes, this is a sequel that didn’t stay true to its predecessor. Yes, of course, this is a slasher film that is going to follow many of the tropes of the genre which were originated in Halloween. However, this sequel feels like it’s trying to fit in with the Friday The 13th style slasher film craze instead of staying true to the Halloween style slasher. The genre exploded after the success of Friday The 13th, and it became very indulgent in gore and sexuality. It essentially became exploitative in that regard, and this film embraced that mentality whereas Halloween was a film built entirely on suspense and atmosphere. There is some suspense here, but it is especially sparse. Instead of holding to what made Halloween successful and effective in the first place, Halloween II tries to conform to what was popular at the time, and thus, feels second rate to me. Rick Rosenthal tries to match Carpenter’s style in many regards, but then, Carpenter comes in and tries to veer it away from what he originally did. It’s certainly not a film that is one director’s vision, and even then, Rosenthal isn’t given much to work with to make this as good as the first movie. I really didn’t get the feeling that there was enough creative effort put into this film to make it succeed in the creative vein.

One of the bigger problems here is that Halloween II feels scattered. The first film had a distinct plot progression as elements gradually converged with one another in a tight, cohesive way. This sequel is extremely loose in that regard. Laurie is essentially a stationary target throughout the movie, spending a good chunk of it asleep or screaming, but Michael Myers roams about the hospital killing everyone else while Loomis is out scouring the streets for Michael. No longer is Loomis in sync with his prey anticipating his psychology and instinctual impulses. He’s tagging along with the police instead of driving the narrative forward. Even the majority of his dialogue feels retreaded from the first movie as he re-explains the history of himself and Michael, and his talk about evil incarnate. It entirely feels like it is only there in case someone watching this movie never saw the first one. Even Donald Pleasance seems a tad monotonous delivering this reworked dialogue. While his performance is still of a high quality, there’s just nothing new for him to do here. The film also hardly feels like it’s building any momentum. John Carpenter reportedly had a very difficult time coming up with a story for this film while writing the script, and it really does show. Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode have next to nothing to do here except uncover newly conceived secrets about Michael and Laurie’s past, which amounts to nothing. There’s no mounting tension heading into the third act, and Laurie’s chase scene earlier on is very mild and slow paced. This film doesn’t offer a sense of escalating threat until the last few minutes before Loomis engulfs himself and Michael in an inferno. The pacing is very monotonous because the story is very loose and lacks directional momentum.

The supporting characters here are mostly a lot of interchangeable hospital staff going about their mundane duties getting killed, and an audience likely couldn’t care less about any one of them. They feel like standard, hollow slasher film fodder, but without even the crutch of a stereotype to make them funny or entertaining. Carpenter’s original was smartly and greatly cast filling out very lively characters, but here, there are just so many throwaway characters with very little personality that very little care was needed to put together a memorable supporting cast. Even Sheriff Brackett vanishes from the film after learning of his daughter’s death, and so, we get new police officers who have really nothing fresh or pertinent to contribute to the story.

And it really is a shame that Jamie Lee Curtis got hooked into doing this film. It is an utter waste of her talents. She spends the majority of the film either laying in a hospital bed, running away from Michael Myers, or hiding in a parked car. This is a sequel that brings people back to simply do nothing new or challenging. To me, it’s another sign that there was a lack of creative drive behind this. Every character feels either generic or wasted. Also, since Jamie Lee Curtis had since adopted a shorter hairstyle, she had to be fitted with this blatantly obvious bad wig. This just further adds to the nagging inconsistencies between the two films.

Now, I know there are people who are fans of Dick Warlock’s Shape, but I have never liked his lethargic, robotic movements at all. If this movie is supposed to pick up at the exact moment the first left off, there should have been a demand for consistency. Nick Castle’s Shape moved with a relentless fluidity. He felt like a shark hunting his prey with a fierce single-minded focus. Warlock is so horribly stiff that I see no ferocity or cunning intellect here. Before, Michael’s actions had a clearly evident intelligence and deliberateness behind them. He stalked his prey with patience and purpose. He observed them before striking. Here, he just shows up and starts killing like a mindless machine, and to me, that’s just not interesting or intriguing at all. Warlock is a great stuntman, but as Michael Myers, he does nothing good for me.

I can appreciate some bad slasher movies because many of them at least show that they are trying. Their end result might not be creatively successful, but the filmmakers put forth a visible effort to make a somewhat effective horror film. For me, Halloween II doesn’t even give me that much. I find it to be a very dull, bland, and boring slasher movie. It has none of the atmospheric tension or magic that John Carpenter harnessed for the first movie, and the story is very lazy even for a slasher film. I think Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is the vastly superior sequel in every aspect. Also, released the same year, I passionately believe that Friday The 13th, Part 2 is one of the best slasher films ever made. I don’t hate Halloween II. It just doesn’t do enough either way to motivate a passionate response from me. Any other films in this franchise I don’t end up reviewing are simply because I don’t wish to subject myself to them again or even for the first time.

To say that the Halloween film franchise has been a very mixed bag with very debatable highs and lows would be putting it mildly. Probably the blackest sheep of the family is Halloween III: Season of the Witch. After burning Michael Myers alive in the second film, John Carpenter decided to take the franchise into an anthology format. Each new entry would be generally unrelated to one another except for sharing a Halloween theme. It failed, dismally. Does that mean the film is particularly bad? Well, that’s complicated. The non-sequel was panned by critics and fans alike, and there is true reason to that. In recent times, it has gained more respect apart from its franchise ties. However, before I go further, let’s layout the plot first.

Dr. Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) is a physician at a northern California hospital. One October night, a man named Harry Cambridge is carted into the emergency room in hysterics. Grasping a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask and screaming “They’re going to kill us all”. Naturally, he seems to have lost his sanity, but when Harry is murdered in his hospital bed later that night by a mysterious man (Dick Warlock) who shortly thereafter enters into a car & blows himself sky high, Dr. Challis becomes very curious as to Harry’s claims. His interest is furthered when Harry’s daughter, Ellie, tells Challis what drove her father into hysterics. Harry Cambridge was investigating the origins of the Silver Shamrock masks, and to why no orders were being taken for the following year. Daniel & Ellie trek to Santa Mira (the home of the Silver Shamrock Company) to find the answers they seek. They are horrified when they discover that the company owner, Conal Cochrane (Dan O’Herlihy), has implanted microchips, partially made from mysterious Stonehenge rocks, into the masks, and when the Silver Shamrock commercial plays with its special jingle, it will kill countless numbers of children across the country in a horrific manner. As the night goes on, time draws short, and Daniel Challis must attempt to thwart Cochrane’s evil, sinister, dreadful plan. Through relentless android assassins (who all look like Dick Warlock), a treacherous factory, and more, Dr. Challis desperately races against time to stop this living nightmare from happening.

This film is good, but not great. It has a tense and suspenseful story that plays out with some shocking visuals and lots of android gore (they ooze yellow fluid). It’s sort of clever that the film still maintains the opening shot of the jack-o-lantern, but as a video graphic, thus, supporting the film’s technology motif. The film starts off with a suspenseful and mysterious chase sequence which sets up an eerie tone for the film. However, while there are several strong moments of horror and unsettling atmosphere, they feel very far between with little going on in the meantime to maintain a driving plot.

While the score is very identifiable as a John Carpenter / Alan Howarth creation, I think its main shortcoming is a lack of an iconic theme. The music is either a pulsating, rhythmic vibe or just eerie underscore to enhance the danger and creep factor. When the original Halloween is playing late in the film on a television set, the music from that film more than overshadows the original music for this film. Still, this is certainly far from being a bad score. It’s perfectly creepy and ominous from two master composers, but knowing the other work they have done, it seems a little lacking in creativity. The incessant repeat usage of the Silver Shamrock jingle surely becomes irritating very quickly, adding another negative mark against the film.

Director Tommy Lee Wallace doesn’t have the artist strength of John Carpenter, and while the cinematography of Dean Cundey goes a long way to boosting the visual quality of the film, there’s still a definite fall-off in suspenseful innovation. Furthermore, several of the sets and props seem budget-starved. and the $2.5 million budget re-inforces that statement. The lesser grade production values really damage the film’s potential for being taken seriously. If the film had double that budget, perhaps such things would’ve looked better, but it wouldn’t have saved the film. There are simply far more fundamental problems with Halloween III that could’ve been salvaged with the right person at the helm. Thankfully, the special make-up effects are of an excellent gory quality.

Now, Tom Atkins puts in a strong, well-rounded performance here. He shows the desperation of Challis well, and even more so, the intense fear at the film’s finale. It’s a good performance as this womanizing doctor, but at times, you may feel as if he is is out-of-place. Atkins is a big, tall guy, and having him play a less than physically capable man comes off as awkward on screen. He easily does well with what he’s given, but there’s not much of a character on the page for him to appear unique or compelling. Challis doesn’t have a particularly distinctive personality to really distinguish him strongly enough in the story. This is pretty common with every character.

For instance, Dan O’Herlihy does a decent job as the insidious and sadistic Cochrane, but it’s not a great performance. Granted, he’s convincingly evil, but barely more than that. We are given a preview of Cochrane’s intended fate for the youth of the country, and it is truly shocking and horrifying. Unfortunately, that alone doesn’t amplify the character of Cochrane. I feel he needed to be more devilish, more demonic, more purely evil, but O’Herlihy’s performance does not reflect that. His motives are horrific, but the man himself acts exceptionally casual. He exudes very little emotion beyond a slight foreboding tone when he explains his motives and intention to Dr. Challis. Cochrane shows no anger, no contempt, no vindictiveness. Considering his motives, one would expect a more driven, more passionately evil character to come through on screen. A casual evil can entirely work, but it needs more under the surface to make it truly disturbing. One part of it is the script, but the other is the direction. O’Herlihy might’ve been capable of more, but Wallace does nothing to motivate a stronger performance. Basically, there’s no true depth to the performances. You can look back at the wonderfully subtle work of Donald Pleasance in John Carpenter’s 1978 film to see what dramatic depth truly is, and how a great actor can inhabit a role well with the aid of a talented director.

I personally feel that this movie had potential, and if someone were to be bold enough to revamp it into a modern day production, I think it could meet that potential. These days, one never knows what Hollywood will want to pillage next. The premise of mixing mystical forces with a science fiction tinge sounds great to me, but it wouldn’t be an entirely new. I simply believe that, with a proper budget in the hands of a talented director and an updated script, Season of the Witch could be an exponentially better film. As it is, we’ve got a low budget B grade horror film with a fading stain of spite.

So, in the end, we are left with an intensely fearful cliffhanger as Challis screams at the television station over the phone to shut off the final commercial. It’s a thrilling and suspenseful finale, and it should stick with you for sometime. As I said at the start, we have a mixed bag. The story worked, and the film had it’s frightening and thrilling moments. However, the production faltered. Tommy Lee Wallace isn’t a real visionary director, and the score was truly sub par for both Carpenter & Howarth (latter of which would do great scores for the next three Halloween films). There are a couple of films I like just based on their potential despite the film not realizing that potential. I believe this is one of them. I can enjoy certain elements of it, but Halloween III: Season of the Witch just doesn’t captivate me all the way. In the least, I suggest checking it out just so you can make your opinion of it instead of blindly buying into the scorn of decades past.